Are Thiem and Zverev already in the top 50 players of all time?

[SteffiGoat]

According to this list (showing only active players), Thiem is ranked 43rd and Zverev is already ranked 48th all-time (Open era).

For reference, below list is their top 20 including non-active players.

Pretty amazing to think that at 24 years old, Zverev is already among the top 50 players of all time...

 

[NAS]

How come Med is below Raonic and Zverev has won 5 big titles and more or less all names below him don't have that accomplishment

 

[SteffiGoat]

How come Med is below Raonic and Zverev has won 5 big titles and more or less all names below him don't have that accomplishment

I think Raonic is just barely ahead (for now). He has been in 4 Masters Finals (lost 3 times to prime Novak and once to prime Nadal). He has also been to 23 tournament finals (lost 15) and one GS final.

 

[Tennisfan339]

I absolutely don't understand how this list works lol. What does "Ach p" , Elo, TF, AF, BT... mean. And how do they decide Federer>Djokovic>Nadal... ? Can you explain OP?

 

[NAS]

I absolutely don't understand how this list works lol. What does "Ach p" , Elo, TF, AF, BT... mean. And how do they decide Federer>Djokovic>Nadal... ? Can you explain OP?

I think this list is prepared by some old school, where every big titles used to count not only slam and yec was really big like a fourth slam( bigger than AO in 80s and third slam in 70s( bigger than RG and AO), every master might have been given more weightage as was in the past

 

[Musterrific]

Source?

 

[Third Serve]

Source?

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - GOAT List

Open Era GOAT List (a.k.a. GOATometer) compares tennis player career achievements expressed by GOAT Points

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

 

[Third Serve]

They may be in the top 50, I don’t have any idea lol

Not gonna go around looking for 50 other players who could be better than them.

 

[NAS]

They may be in the top 50, I don’t have any idea lol

Not gonna go around looking for 50 other players who could be better than them.

People listed below Zverev ( apart from Med) are not better than him acheivmentwise, like 51 ranked Tsonga has a higher peak but did not achieve more than Zverev .
It is the the first twenty people in list which may be controversial like Sampras below lendl and connors

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Thiem I could see. He’s the 7th or 8th best guy since Fedal began. Zverev has a slam final, a WTF title and 4 or 5 masters titles. So yeah he could be low 40s.

 

[BeatlesFan]

No.

Zverev's never won a slam and Thiem has won one. He only won that USO because Djoker was DQ'ed and the the field was depleted. He also won because the other guy out choked him when serving for the title. There are dozens of players like Thomas Muster (44 titles, one slam), Vilas (4 slams, 62 titles) who aren't even on this ridiculous list. Neither Thiem or Zverev are top 50 all time, it's utterly ludicrous. They may eventually become top 50, but they sure aren't right at this moment.

 

[NAS]

No.

Zverev's never won a slam and Thiem has won one. He only won that USO because Djoker was DQ'ed and the the field was depleted. He also won because the other guy out choked him when serving for the title. There are dozens of players like Thomas Muster (44 titles, one slam), Vilas (4 slams, 62 titles) who aren't even on this ridiculous list. Neither Thiem or Zverev are top 50 all time, it's utterly ludicrous. They may eventually become top 50, but they sure aren't right at this moment.

What are you saying friend? Vilas is ranked 15 and Muster around 29

 

[James P]

No.

Zverev's never won a slam and Thiem has won one. He only won that USO because Djoker was DQ'ed and the the field was depleted. He also won because the other guy out choked him when serving for the title. There are dozens of players like Thomas Muster (44 titles, one slam), Vilas (4 slams, 62 titles) who aren't even on this ridiculous list. Neither Thiem or Zverev are top 50 all time, it's utterly ludicrous. They may eventually become top 50, but they sure aren't right at this moment.

You do realize there aren't 50 people that have won slams, right?

 

[Musterrific]

What are you saying friend? Vilas is ranked 15 and Muster around 29

Ferrer being ranked ahead of Muster tells me all I need to know about this list.

 

[buscemi]

Unless I'm missing a player or two, these are the pertinent lists:

Players who won multiple Open Era Majors:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Laver
14 Newcombe
15. Courier
16. Vilas
17. Ashe
18. Kodes
19. Murray
20. Wawrinka
21. Rosewall
22. Kuerten
23. Kodes
24. Smith
25. Nastase
26. Bruguera
27. Kafelnikov
28. Safin
29. Hewitt
30. Kriek

Other than Kriek (who won 2 diluted Australian Opens), that's 29 players above Thiem and Zverev.

Players who won 1 Major in the Open Era:

1. Gimeno
2. Orantes
3. Edmondson
4. Panatta
5. Tanner
6. Gerulaitis
7. Teacher
8. Noah
9. Cash
10. Chang
11. Gomez
12. Stich
13. Muster
14. Krajicek
15. Korda
16. Moya
17. Ivanišević
18. Johansson
19. Costa
20. Ferrero
21. Roddick
22. Gaudio
23. del Potro
24. Cilic
25. Thiem

We can remove Edmondson and Teacher, who also won diluted Australian Opens.

So, how many of the remaining 22 players are ahead of Thiem? How many are ahead of Zverev? And are there others in the "best player never to win a Major" who are ahead of Zverev like Mecir, Corretja, etc.?

 

[Phoenix1983]

You do realize there aren't 50 people that have won slams, right?

There are 56 men in the Open Era who have won a slam.

Arguably all should be ranked above Zverev, although we could possibly discount some of the early AO winners, and maybe the likes of Korda, Johansson, Costa and Gaudio.

He might therefore scrape into the top 50 of the Open Era, being generous.

 

[NAS]

Unless I'm missing a player or two, these are the pertinent lists:

Players who won multiple Open Era Majors:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Laver
14 Newcombe
15. Courier
16. Vilas
17. Ashe
18. Kodes
19. Murray
20. Wawrinka
21. Rosewall
22. Kuerten
23. Kodes
24. Smith
25. Nastase
26. Bruguera
27. Kafelnikov
28. Safin
29. Hewitt
30. Kriek

Other than Kriek (who won 2 diluted Australian Opens), that's 29 players above Thiem and Zverev.

Players who won 1 Major in the Open Era:

1. Gimeno
2. Orantes
3. Edmondson
4. Panatta
5. Tanner
6. Gerulaitis
7. Teacher
8. Noah
9. Cash
10. Chang
11. Gomez
12. Stich
13. Muster
14. Krajicek
15. Korda
16. Moya
17. Ivanišević
18. Johansson
19. Costa
20. Ferrero
21. Roddick
22. Gaudio
23. del Potro
24. Cilic
25. Thiem

We can remove Edmondson and Teacher, who also won diluted Australian Opens.

So, how many of the remaining 22 players are ahead of Thiem? How many are ahead of Zverev? And are there others in the "best player never to win a Major" who are ahead of Zverev like Mecir, Corretja, etc.?

Good informative post, now it's come down to this what you prefer, whole career or slam, because Gaudio on whole career is surely not better than Zverev, neither Correrja on achievement

 

[James P]

There are 56 men in the Open Era who have won a slam.

Arguably all should be ranked above Zverev, although we could possibly discount some of the early AO winners, and maybe the likes of Korda, Johansson, Costa and Gaudio.

He might therefore scrape into the top 50 of the Open Era, being generous.

Yep, you're correct. I miscounted.

 

[DjokoLand]

The reason players like this show up in top 50’s etc is that tennis is usually dominated by only a few players per decade. Sure the Fedalovic has been going on for 20 years now that even winning a slam or 2 makes you high up the all time list

 

[ZanderGoga]

No, though Zverev will be there by the end of his career.

 

[Fabresque]

Nishikori ahead of Cilic even though Cilic reached more slam finals and dunked on Nishi in his lone slam final, crying.

 

[I Am Finnish]

Nishikori above Cilic? How ?
Cilic won a slam and the real slam

 

[Crazy Finn]

At best, Theim and Zverev are in the bottom 10 or 5 of the open era.

 

[Sport]

Yes Thiem, not Zverev.

 

[Backspin1183]

Source?

 

[Benben245]

Where is Jim Courier? Among others

 

[NAS]

Where is Jim Courier? Among others

Courier is ranked 22, behind Roddick at 21

 

[ForehandCross]

Not gonna lie, I miss the guy.

 

[ForehandCross]

Courier is ranked 22, behind Roddick at 21

I like Roddick but didn't courier win 4 slams?

 

[Crazy Finn]

I like Roddick but didn't courier win 4 slams?

That's why these kinds of statistical rankings are garbage.

 

[toby55555]

Who cares about a top 50 in anything?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Courier is ranked 22, behind Roddick at 21

Which in itself tells you that the list is crap. A four slam winner below a one slam winner.

 

[NAS]

Which in itself tells you that the list is crap. A four slam winner below a one slam winner.

I never said the list is great, I still don't know what criteria they used

 

[Spencer Gore]

How can it be an all-time list if it only uses the Open Era?

 

[NAS]

How can it be an all-time list if it only uses the Open Era?

List clearly open era goat list, I agree you can't call goat or all time list

 

[Wander]

Ferrer being ranked ahead of Muster tells me all I need to know about this list.

It's just about the rules the point accumulation is based on. Ferrer gets a lot of points for making a ton of Slam quarter-finals and Masters finals and semi-finals and for basically hanging around at a decently high level for over 10 years. Muster of course had a better peak, but only had a couple of seasons at that level.

 

[Patogen]

Unless I'm missing a player or two, these are the pertinent lists:

Players who won multiple Open Era Majors:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Laver
14 Newcombe
15. Courier
16. Vilas
17. Ashe
18. Kodes
19. Murray
20. Wawrinka
21. Rosewall
22. Kuerten
23. Kodes
24. Smith
25. Nastase
26. Bruguera
27. Kafelnikov
28. Safin
29. Hewitt
30. Kriek

Other than Kriek (who won 2 diluted Australian Opens), that's 29 players above Thiem and Zverev.

Players who won 1 Major in the Open Era:

1. Gimeno
2. Orantes
3. Edmondson
4. Panatta
5. Tanner
6. Gerulaitis
7. Teacher
8. Noah
9. Cash
10. Chang
11. Gomez
12. Stich
13. Muster
14. Krajicek
15. Korda
16. Moya
17. Ivanišević
18. Johansson
19. Costa
20. Ferrero
21. Roddick
22. Gaudio
23. del Potro
24. Cilic
25. Thiem

We can remove Edmondson and Teacher, who also won diluted Australian Opens.

So, how many of the remaining 22 players are ahead of Thiem? How many are ahead of Zverev? And are there others in the "best player never to win a Major" who are ahead of Zverev like Mecir, Corretja, etc.?

There's Kodes twice on the list. At 18, and 23 again.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

There's Kodes twice on the list. At 18, and 23 again.

That's his brother

 

[Benben245]

Courier is ranked 22, behind Roddick at 21

Im sorry, Roddick is ahead of Marat Safin? Is this a joke?

 

[mike danny]

People listed below Zverev ( apart from Med) are not better than him acheivmentwise, like 51 ranked Tsonga has a higher peak but did not achieve more than Zverev .
It is the the first twenty people in list which may be controversial like Sampras below lendl and connors

As glad as I am that Fed is first and Hewitt and Roddick are 20 and 21 respectively, I don't really trust that list.

 

[40-15 still haunts me]

As glad as I am that Fed is first and Hewitt and Roddick are 20 and 21 respectively, I don't really trust that list.

As long as Federer is first, it’s accurate

 

[NAS]

As glad as I am that Fed is first and Hewitt and Roddick are 20 and 21 respectively, I don't really trust that list.

Don't know the criteria but I think they have taken I think longevity also,

 

[mike danny]

As long as Federer is first, it’s accurate

I find that site questionable in general. They have Wimb 1993 slower tham Wimb 2019 because of the service hold percentage or something. Shoddy stuff.

 

[mike danny]

Unless I'm missing a player or two, these are the pertinent lists:

Players who won multiple Open Era Majors:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Laver
14 Newcombe
15. Courier
16. Vilas
17. Ashe
18. Kodes
19. Murray
20. Wawrinka
21. Rosewall
22. Kuerten
23. Kodes
24. Smith
25. Nastase
26. Bruguera
27. Kafelnikov
28. Safin
29. Hewitt
30. Kriek

Other than Kriek (who won 2 diluted Australian Opens), that's 29 players above Thiem and Zverev.

Players who won 1 Major in the Open Era:

1. Gimeno
2. Orantes
3. Edmondson
4. Panatta
5. Tanner
6. Gerulaitis
7. Teacher
8. Noah
9. Cash
10. Chang
11. Gomez
12. Stich
13. Muster
14. Krajicek
15. Korda
16. Moya
17. Ivanišević
18. Johansson
19. Costa
20. Ferrero
21. Roddick
22. Gaudio
23. del Potro
24. Cilic
25. Thiem

We can remove Edmondson and Teacher, who also won diluted Australian Opens.

So, how many of the remaining 22 players are ahead of Thiem? How many are ahead of Zverev? And are there others in the "best player never to win a Major" who are ahead of Zverev like Mecir, Corretja, etc.?

Is this a hierarchical list?

 

[accidental]

According to this list Sam Querrey is the 160 th greatest player of all time.

And he is only 15 places below 12 time slam winner Roy Emerson who is number 145

 

[mike danny]

Nishikori ahead of Cilic even though Cilic reached more slam finals and dunked on Nishi in his lone slam final, crying.

Also won a masters title to Nishi's 0.

 

[mike danny]

Courier is ranked 22, behind Roddick at 21

This is one of the reasons why I don't trust this list.

 

[mike danny]

I never said the list is great, I still don't know what criteria they used

Like you said, they probably took into account Roddick's superior longevity, but it's still silly.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Like you said, they probably took into account Roddick's superior longevity, but it's still silly.

There is no way for me one could put an one slam winner ahead of a four slam winner irrespective of other achievements. In this particular case Courier even has additional things going for him, like considerably more weeks at No.1, being the more versatile player (reaching the final at all four slams), etc.

 

[mike danny]

There is no way for me one could put an one slam winner ahead of a four slam winner irrespective of other achievements. In this particular case Courier even has additional things going for him, like considerably more weeks at No.1, being the more versatile player (reaching the final at all four slams), etc.

Hey, I already dismissed that site when I saw that 2019 Wimb is considered faster than 1993 Wimb.